Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Integrons: Evolution Creates Itself

The evolutionary expectation was that species adapt by unguided variation. Sometimes, it was thought, this blind process happens to stumble upon an improved design which has a reproductive advantage, and so becomes more prevalent in future generations. This evolutionary model could hardly be more wrong. We now have glimpsed the profound complexity of biology adaptation mechanisms. They are anything but a blind process and recent research adds yet more insight into this fascinating aspect of biology that contradicts evolution.

I've discussed this and other examples of how adaptation reveals an immense, yet unspoken, serrendipity in evolutionary theory. Evolution, so we must believe, just happened to create incredible mechanisms which, in turn, fueled evolution. Even evolutionists admit that these mechanisms are crucial to their story.

The recent research adds to this story by exploring the ability of bacteria to acquire resistance to multiple antibiotics using a genetic "copying and pasting" of resistance genes. Apparently unaware of the theory of evolution, this sophisticated design, as one writer put it, uses the antibiotics themselves to "trigger the synthesis of the bacterial enzyme that captures the resistance genes and enables their expression in the integron."

Unbelievable. Adaptation was always claimed as the no-brainer, empirical evidence for evolution. How can anyone doubt evolution when we can observe it right before our eyes? This claim has always been an absurd equivocation on evolution, for such adaptation has very little in common with the macro evolution narrative. The absurdity is reinforced by this growing body of knowledge revealing the deep complexity of adaptation.

Evolutionists are left scratching their heads, wondering how their know-nothing process was able to devise such a clever adaptation machine. They are left with the silly idea that evolution created the intelligent adaptation machine that then allowed for evolution. But if you won't tell anyone about this, then I won't either. Aren't the emperor's clothes beautiful?

6 comments:

Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionists are left scratching their heads, wondering how their know-nothing process was able to devise such a clever adaptation machine.

When DNA is damaged, the cell attempts a repair. This can lead to mutation. Repressor LexA mediates a complex and multifaceted repair mechanism. If the system evolved, then we would expect LexA to be part of a family of related proteins.

"Sometimes, it was thought, this blind process happens to stumble upon an improved design which has a reproductive advantage, and so becomes more prevalent in future generations. This evolutionary model could hardly be more wrong. We now have glimpsed the profound complexity of biology adaptation mechanisms. They are anything but a blind process and recent research adds yet more insight into this fascinating aspect of biology that contradicts evolution."

This makes little sense. The theory of evolution explains beautifully how blind processes can build incredibly complex and intricate mechanisms in nature. It is simply no good at all to say - 'X, Y ands Z are very complex, therfore they could not have been produced by evolution'. The theory of evolution, if true, WOULD create extremely complex features and intricate mechanisms.

'Complexity = not produced by evolutioin' is stupid.

Nor is the research you cite evidence against evolution. At least, if it is, I don't see how. Yes, life is complicated, but that is no refutation of evolution in the slightest.

"Evolutionists are left scratching their heads, wondering how their know-nothing process was able to devise such a clever adaptation machine."

Nothing did any 'devising'. FOrces do not plan things and work things out. Gravity does not. Magnetism does not. Continental drift does not. And evolution does not. It is perverse and ridiculous to think of them acting in such terms.

It seems you cannot get past intricate and complex mechanisms occurring without planning or design. But the theory of evolution does not claim that evolution ITSELF, AS A FORCE did the planning - it stipulates NOTHING did any planning. That's the point of it being a blind force.

Again, complexity presents no challenge at all to the theory of evolution. Well, that is to say, biologists will obviously have a harder time figuring out exactly how complex mechanisms work, but I mean just because something is very complex, does not mean it cannot have evolved.

Evolutionists are left scratching their heads, wondering how their know-nothing process was able to devise such a clever adaptation machine. They are left with the silly idea that evolution created the intelligent adaptation machine that then allowed for evolution. But if you won't tell anyone about this, then I won't either. Aren't the emperor's clothes beautiful?

More trademark mangling from Cornelius. And once again, you choose to focus on wording in a popular publication, rather than looking at the source material (although you at least provide a link).

There's 20+ years of published research on integrons, so I'm not sure I understand the case for them being your special little secret. The paper you refer to was published in Science, no less. It would appear that neither the defence mechanisms of the Darwinian monster nor its editorial board minions have detected how singularly devastating this is for evolutionary theory.

Predictably, the facts here are insufficiently scandalous, so you have chosen to embellish them with some clever editorial comments. Today, you choose to state that the "adaptation machine" is "intelligent".

But how intelligent? Let's have a look.

If the 'machine' in this case was 'intelligent', surely it would be consciously detecting the antibiotic the bacterium is exposed to, identifying it and optimally responding with the appropriate shuffle of the genes. That would be rather special, wouldn't it?

Sadly, this does not occur.

Instead, when the cells are under stress (not just when in the presence of an antibiotic) a response is triggered releasing an enzyme which causes random recombination in the integron, creating different gene expression patterns upon which natural selection can act - i.e. if one new gene order confers resistance then the bacterium survives and multiplies.

A fantastic mechanism for survival - but one driven by random processes, made functional through differential mortality and co-opting existing processes such as recombination for novel uses. That happens to be precisely in line with the expectations of evolutionary theory.

====There's 20+ years of published research on integrons, so I'm not sure I understand the case for them being your special little secret. ====

Who said integrons were a secret? Or is this the usual evolutionary strawman?

====The paper you refer to was published in Science, no less. It would appear that neither the defence mechanisms of the Darwinian monster nor its editorial board minions have detected how singularly devastating this is for evolutionary theory.====

So let's not think about it.

====Instead, when the cells are under stress (not just when in the presence of an antibiotic) a response is triggered releasing an enzyme which causes random recombination in the integron, creating different gene expression patterns upon which natural selection can act - i.e. if one new gene order confers resistance then the bacterium survives and multiplies.

A fantastic mechanism for survival - but one driven by random processes, made functional through differential mortality and co-opting existing processes such as recombination for novel uses. That happens to be precisely in line with the expectations of evolutionary theory.====

So evolution creates machines which then create evolutionary change. And evolutionists not only deny there is any serrendipity in all this, they claim it is an expectation of evolutionary theory.

"So evolution creates machines which then create evolutionary change. And evolutionists not only deny there is any serrendipity in all this, they claim it is an expectation of evolutionary theory."

That would be the case if the use of integrons was the only mechanism know to be able to induce genetic changes. Can you think of a mechanism that can produce genetic changes and don't involve biological machinery?

"So evolution creates machines which then create evolutionary change. And evolutionists not only deny there is any serrendipity in all this, they claim it is an expectation of evolutionary theory."

What I said, Cornelius, is that the "machinery" is not intelligent, which was your claim.

The "machinery" in this example uses recombination to re-order existing genetic components of the integron. It does not create novel genetic components to combat the antibiotics - which would be truly remarkable - it merely regulates the gene expression, making the response less wasteful. And the rearrangements are random and only useful due to differential mortality - the bases of naturalistic evolution.

That is hardly serendipity. If you are to call it such, you should at least justify it. Simply, using a word that incites incredulity is not, in itself, a full and robust argument...

You seem to find a fallacy in the idea that evolution favours trajectories that accelerate evolutionary change. Perhpas you could flesh out your objection to this? This seems a little like the old question: why has the mutation rate not evolved to zero? In a changing environment, a degree of plasticity is most likely advantageous. There is plenty of literature on the evolution of evolvability, and the role of gene/genome duplication in such plasticity (e.g. some of the differences between gymnosperms and angiosperms, such as the phytochrome family). On the other hand, rigidity is a relatively quick route to extinction in a dynamic environment. Why, then, should naturalistic evolution not favour evolvability where such arises and where there are genetic bases that could produce it?